Chapter 4California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Staff in
an Administrative Office Held an Illegal Raffle
and Illegally Sold
Alcoholic Beverages
Case I2016-1360

Chapter 5Department of Industrial Relations: A Supervisor Neglected Her
Duty When She Failed to Manage an Employee Who
Had an
Insufficient Workload
Case I2016-1059

Chapter 6California Department of Social Services: An Analyst Misused State Resources for Personal Reasons
Case I2016-0435

Chapter 1

DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL:
A PSYCHIATRIC TECHNICIAN FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS ABSENCES AND RECEIVED IMPROPER OVERTIME PAY
CASE I2015‑0959

About the Department

State Hospitals employs more than 2,800 psychiatric technicians who provide a basic level of general behavioral and psychiatric nursing care for patients. It oversees five hospitals and serves mentally ill patients whom criminal or civil court judges commit for treatment.

Relevant Criteria

California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665, requires state agencies to keep complete and accurate time and attendance records for all of their employees.

Government Code section 19838 provides that when the State determines that it has made an overpayment to an employee, it must notify the employee of the overpayment and allow the employee to respond before commencing recoupment actions. It also requires the State to initiate such actions within three years from the date of overpayment.

The various causes for disciplining state employees are found in Government Code section 19572.

Results in Brief

A psychiatric technician at Atascadero State Hospital engaged in a pattern
of attendance abuse—regularly arriving late, leaving early, and taking long
lunches—without accounting for his absences on his timesheets. This conduct
allowed him to receive $7,540 in improper overtime pay from July 2015
through June 2016. The psychiatric technician’s supervisor and shift lead
neglected their duties when they failed to ensure the accuracy of his
attendance records. They should have been aware of the problem and taken
definitive steps to address it.

Background

State law requires that state agencies keep accurate records of their
employees’ attendance. In support of this responsibility, State Hospitals
has established policies and procedures requiring its employees to complete
monthly timesheets. State Hospitals also requires its clinical staff, such
as nurses and psychiatric technicians, to accurately record their arrival
and departure times on sign‑in sheets within their assigned units of the
hospital. When unit supervisors approve timesheets, they must verify that
employees’ hours match those on the sign‑in sheets. The supervisors rely on
shift leads to help ensure the accuracy of the sign‑in sheets.

State Hospitals has two types of electronic data that come from sources
unrelated to timekeeping and yet provide useful records of employees’ daily
whereabouts. Specifically, State Hospitals uses a Personal Duress Alarm
System that requires employees to wear an alarm device they can activate
during emergencies. The system tracks employees’ physical locations on the
hospital campuses. Also, before entering and exiting each hospital’s
secured areas, employees must scan their ID badges. Because patient care
units—where psychiatric technicians spend the vast majority of their work
hours—are located within the secured areas, the ID badge scan data provide
valuable information about employees’ arrival and departure times.

In response to an allegation we received that employees at State Hospitals
were improperly receiving overtime pay, we initiated an investigation.

A Psychiatric Technician Did Not Account for Days on Which He Arrived Late,
Left Early, and Took Long Lunches, Which Resulted in His Receipt of $7,540
in Improper Overtime Pay

From July 2015 through June 2016, a psychiatric technician engaged in a
pattern of time and attendance abuse by regularly arriving late, leaving
early, and taking long lunches. The records we obtained show that his late
arrivals and early departures ranged from 10 minutes to more than an hour.
He also frequently took lunches that exceeded his allotted lunch break by
10 to 40 minutes.

When the employee recorded his arrival and departure times on sign‑in
sheets in the hospital units where he worked and when he completed his
timesheets, he failed to account for his absences. The psychiatric
technician signed up for many hours of voluntary overtime, often working
five to six extra shifts per week, and his time abuse occurred in both his
regular and overtime shifts. On the sign‑in sheets and timesheets we
reviewed, the psychiatric technician almost always indicated that he had
worked his full shifts, regularly claiming to have worked 15.5 hours per
day. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, the data we reviewed indicate that
he had unrecorded absences on 58 percent of his workdays during the
one‑year period. On those 195 days, his absences totaled 159 hours, or an
average of 49 minutes per day.

As Figure 1 shows, these unrecorded absences resulted in the psychiatric
technician receiving $7,540 in improper overtime pay. Although the
psychiatric technician’s time and attendance abuse occurred during both his
regular and overtime shifts, his overtime pay was based on the number of
work hours he claimed on his timesheets that exceeded the standard 40‑hour
workweek, and the hours he actually worked always greatly exceeded that
threshold. Therefore, had he accounted for his absences, his overtime hours
and pay would have been reduced by 159 hours and $7,540, respectively.

Source: California State Auditor’s Office analyses of electronic data and timesheets from State Hospitals and pay records from the State Controller’s Office.

When interviewed, the psychiatric technician was unable to justify his
attendance issues and ultimately acknowledged he had not accounted for his
absences. He admitted that he sometimes arrived late but blamed it on
delays he encountered while passing through the security gates.
Nevertheless, both he and his shift lead agreed that State Hospitals
requires that employees allow enough time to pass through the security
gates so that they can arrive at their work locations at the start of their
shifts. The psychiatric technician also said that his shift lead was always
aware of instances when he left early even though he was not sure if his
shift lead approved of those instances. When presented with the hospital’s
data showing his absences, the psychiatric technician did not refute the
data and stated that he had no reason to believe they were inaccurate. When
comparing the data to the hours he claimed on his timesheets, he recognized
that he did not work enough hours on some days to account for the hours he
claimed to have worked.

The shift lead and supervisor should have been aware of the psychiatric
technician’s attendance problems and promptly addressed them. The shift
lead initially stated that he was not aware of any attendance problems and
that the psychiatric technician was an exemplary employee. However, the
shift lead later acknowledged that he had noted the psychiatric technician
taking long lunches and had spoken to him about the issue. The shift lead
ultimately took responsibility for not properly monitoring the psychiatric
technician’s attendance and acknowledged that he did not always ensure the
times on sign‑in sheets were accurate. The psychiatric technician’s
supervisor said that he was unaware of the time abuse and that he relied
heavily on shift leads to monitor his subordinates’ attendance and to
ensure the accuracy of the sign‑in sheets. After we presented the evidence
we discuss above, both the shift lead and the supervisor agreed that the
psychiatric technician’s attendance behavior was not acceptable.

Recommendations

To remedy the improper governmental activities described in this report and
to prevent them from recurring, State Hospitals should do the following:

Take appropriate disciplinary action against the psychiatric technician.

Take steps to recoup the $7,540 of overtime pay from the psychiatric
technician.

Take appropriate corrective actions to address the failures of the shift
lead and the supervisor and to ensure they fulfill their responsibilities
for recognizing and addressing attendance abuse.

Agency Response

State Hospitals reported in August 2017 that it agrees with our findings
and will implement the recommendations. State Hospitals stated that its
executive team will consult with its legal, labor relations, and human
resources departments regarding the appropriate actions to take against the
psychiatric technician, shift lead, and supervisor. It will discuss with
these departments the steps necessary to recover the improper overtime pay
the psychiatric technician received.

Chapter 2

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES:
AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR AND TWO MANAGERS FAILED TO KEEP ACCURATE TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS
CASE I2016‑0604

About the Department

Water Resources protects, conserves, develops, and manages much of California’s water supply including the State Water Project, which provides water for 25 million residents, farms, and businesses. In addition, it works to prevent and respond to floods, droughts, and catastrophic events that threaten public safety, water resources and management systems, the environment, and property.

Relevant Criteria

California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665, requires state agencies to keep complete and accurate time and attendance records for all of their employees.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 codified in title 29 of the United States Code, section 201 et seq., establishes overtime pay, record keeping, and other labor standards affecting workers in the private and public sector. The wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 apply to most, but not all, state employees.

Results in Brief

From 2008 to 2016, two managers at Water Resources neglected their duties
when they failed to ensure the accuracy of the time and attendance records
of an administrative supervisor. As a result, the administrative
supervisor—a nonexempt employee—did not account for her partial‑day
absences by logging those hours as either vacation or another category of
leave, as her classification required. Based on the limited data available,
we calculated that the administrative supervisor undercharged her leave by
as many as 149 hours over a six‑month period, at an estimated cost to the
State of $5,176.

Background

The manner in which state employees are required to charge time for
absences from work is dependent on whether they are exempt or nonexempt
from the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The job duties and pay of
a position determine an employee’s status as exempt or nonexempt. State
employees who are exempt typically have flexibility in their work hours and
do not have to use vacation hours or other types of leave for partial‑day
absences, but they also are not entitled to overtime pay if they work more
than 40 hours in a workweek. Nonexempt employees must account for every
hour worked, must use vacation or another type of leave for absences of any
duration, and earn overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a
workweek.

In response to an allegation we received that an administrative supervisor
in a nonexempt position was failing to account for her partial‑day absences
as required, we initiated an investigation and requested the assistance of
Water Resources to conduct the investigation.

Two Managers Failed to Ensure the Accuracy of the Administrative
Supervisor’s Time and Attendance Records

The administrative supervisor’s position required her to fully account for
all partial‑day absences; however, she believed that she was exempt from
FLSA timekeeping rules and was not required to charge leave for less than a
full eight‑hour absence. The administrative supervisor told investigators
that she had not charged leave for partial‑day absences since her hire date
in April 2008 because her initial manager had directed her not to, and
after that manager retired in 2016, her current manager gave her the same
instructions. When interviewed, the current manager was surprised to learn
that the administrative supervisor was nonexempt and should have been
charging leave for partial‑day absences. In addition, an email from the
current manager to the administrative supervisor illustrates that he gave
inaccurate instructions to her about how to account for her absences.
Although Water Resources did not interview the former manager, witness
statements support the administrative supervisor’s account that the manager
had provided inaccurate guidance to her.

Likely due to the unwarranted flexibility these managers provided to her,
the administrative supervisor engaged in a pattern of working fewer than 40
hours a week and only accounting for full‑day absences. Specifically, the
administrative supervisor stated in an interview that she sometimes worked
partial days, either because she arrived after 8 a.m. or left before 5 p.m.
In addition, witnesses corroborated the administrative supervisor’s lack of
full‑day attendance. One witness estimated that the administrative
supervisor typically worked partial days as often as three times a week.
Other witnesses stated that the administrative supervisor was regularly
unavailable to staff because she was out of the office so often. Evidence
suggests that her low attendance also led to the administrative supervisor
neglecting her duties, including failing to respond to requests for
information from other Water Resources divisions in a timely manner. The
issues became so prevalent that before our investigation, the division
chief personally directed the administrative supervisor’s managers to
ensure that she was being held accountable for her time worked.

Although Water Resources was unable to definitively quantify the
administrative supervisor’s partial absences, we estimated the number of
hours the administrative supervisor undercharged her vacation or other
leave categories based on information a witness provided to us after
tracking the administrative supervisor’s attendance for a six‑month period
in 2016. Specifically, we compared the witness’s records with the
administrative supervisor’s official attendance record for this period and
found that the administrative supervisor’s timesheets should have accounted
for an additional 149 hours of leave, costing the State an estimated
$5,176. However, based on the administrative supervisor’s pattern of
attendance and her failure to charge leave for partial‑day absences during
her nearly eight years of state employment, the actual cost to the State
was likely much greater.

Although the administrative supervisor had a duty to accurately record the
number of hours she worked daily, her managers were responsible for
providing proper guidance and ensuring the accuracy of her timesheets.
Their assumptions that the administrative supervisor was exempt from FLSA
timekeeping rules were negligent and resulted in a significant cost to the
State.

Recommendations

To remedy the effects of the improper governmental activity substantiated
in this report and to prevent it from recurring, Water Resources should
take the following actions:

Ensure the supervisor starts accounting for partial‑day absences in
accordance with her classification as a nonexempt employee.

Ensure Water Resources management is knowledgeable about individual staff
classifications and their time‑reporting requirements.

Agency Response

In August 2017, Water Resources reported that it generally agreed with the
findings of our investigation. However, Water Resources stated that we
lacked evidence for our assertion that the potential cost to the State
could be much greater than the $5,176 we reported. We calculated the loss
to the State based on a six‑month period for which records were available.
In stating that the loss to the State could be higher, we noted that the
administrative supervisor and witnesses all indicated that the
administrative supervisor frequently worked partial days from 2008 to 2016
and did not account for these absences. Therefore, the total cost to the
State for the administrative supervisor’s failure to account for
partial‑day absences is likely much greater than the amount we calculated
for the six‑month period.

Water Resources also reported that it took action to implement our
recommendations. Specifically, it directed the administrative supervisor to
begin accounting for her partial‑day absences and informed her managers of
this requirement. In addition, it reiterated work expectations to the
administrative supervisor and will monitor her performance. Finally, Water
Resources reported that it will inform all managers and supervisors that
all nonexempt employees must charge time for their partial‑day absences and
will include this requirement in its managers’ and supervisors’ training.

Results in Brief

A professor with UC Davis wasted UC funds when he improperly received
travel and entertainment reimbursements for three limousine trips totaling
$996 and two additional travel expenses totaling $197.

Background

As an employee of the UC Davis Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, the professor is subject to UC’s travel and entertainment
policies. He is involved in education and research activities, and he
frequently travels internationally to attend technical conferences and
research collaboration meetings with representatives of private industry.
As a result of the professor’s efforts, UC Davis receives donations that
are specifically earmarked to support his education and research
activities. However, the professor still is required to abide by UC travel
and entertainment policies.

In response to an allegation we received that the professor improperly
received reimbursements for travel and entertainment expenses, we initiated
an investigation and requested the assistance of UC Davis to conduct the
investigation.

The Professor Improperly Requested and Received Reimbursements for
Limousine Services and Two Other Inappropriate Expenses

The UC Davis investigators determined that on three separate occasions in
April and May 2015, the professor used limousine services as a mode of
transportation. As justification for his reimbursement claims, the
professor stated that he used each limousine trip to discuss business
matters with visitors from outside organizations. However, when UC Davis
investigators reviewed the reimbursement claims for the limousine trips and
requested further justification from the professor, he was unable to
provide documentation or other evidence supporting his previous
justification. Instead, the professor admitted he should have used his own
vehicle. In April 2017, following the investigation, he voluntarily repaid
UC Davis $996 for the three limousine trips.

In the process of aiding in the investigation concerning the limousine
charges, UC Davis found two additional travel expense claims that it had
erroneously processed and reimbursed to the professor in 2014 and 2015.
These expenses totaled $197. One claim did not qualify for reimbursement
under UC travel policy, and the other exceeded the allowable reimbursement
limit. After learning about the errors, the professor also reimbursed UC
Davis for these expenses. In response to these expense claim errors, UC
Davis provided training to the professor’s staff, who regularly assist him
in processing travel and entertainment reimbursement requests.

To address the improper travel expenses identified in this investigation
and to prevent similar activities from occurring, UC Davis should require
the professor to undergo travel reimbursement training that should focus
specifically on appropriate and allowable expenses.

Agency Response

In August 2017, UC Davis stated that it agreed with our findings and that
it intended to implement our recommendation. Specifically, it plans to
provide travel reimbursement training to the professor and will provide
proof of the training upon completion.

Chapter 4

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION:
STAFF IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HELD AN ILLEGAL RAFFLE AND ILLEGALLY SOLD ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
CASE I2016‑1360

About the Department

Corrections has many administrative offices throughout the State supporting the 35 adult correctional facilities it manages. Corrections’ mission is to enhance public safety through the safe and secure incarceration of offenders.

Results in Brief

In December 2016, staff in an administrative office within Corrections
hosted an illegal raffle. As part of the raffle, it illegally sold
alcoholic beverages.

Background

The practice of hosting holiday raffles is common in the workplace;
however, California’s Constitution strictly prohibits unauthorized raffles,
regardless of what they are called. In limited circumstances, state law
allows tax‑exempt, nonprofit organizations to hold raffles, but only with
preapproval from the California Department of Justice (Justice). Conducting
an illegal raffle, even at an office holiday party, is impermissible.

A raffle is a form of lottery, in which the elements of a prize,
consideration, and chance are present. Under state law, a raffle is illegal
if held by an unauthorized group and meets three elements:

A prize
—anything of perceived value, such as money, property, or a trip.

Consideration
—commonly thought of as payment. For example, paying money to
purchase a raffle ticket for a chance to win a prize is consideration.

The distribution of a prize by chance
—the random selection of winners and prizes. A raffle includes distribution
by chance because the winning ticket is blindly pulled from the ticket
pool. On the other hand, a silent auction does not involve distribution by
chance because participants place bids on specific prizes and the prizes go
to the highest bidders.

Additionally, California law prohibits the unauthorized sale of alcohol. If
the ownership of alcohol transfers from one party to another in exchange
for any kind of consideration, including buying a raffle ticket for a
chance to win it, that transfer meets the legal definition of a sale. Only entities properly licensed by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control are permitted to sell alcohol.

In response to an allegation we received that an office within Corrections
had raffled off alcohol at a holiday party, we initiated an investigation.

Staff in One of Corrections’ Administrative Offices Violated Two Separate
State Laws When They Held a Raffle and Offered Alcoholic Beverages as
Prizes

In December 2016, the staff in an administrative office within Corrections
held a raffle at the office’s annual holiday party. The raffle prizes
consisted of six baskets, four of which contained either hard alcohol or
beer. Figure 2 shows the six baskets sold in the raffle, and Figure 3 presents examples of the alcoholic beverages included in the raffle
prizes. One basket also included 50 cartridges of ammunition, the selling
of which required no special license at the time of the raffle. Starting in
2018, however, selling ammunition will require a license from Justice.

Figure 2
Baskets Sold at Corrections’ Holiday Raffle

Source: Corrections’ photographs of raffle prizes.

Figure 3
Examples of Alcoholic Beverages Included in the Holiday Raffle Prizes

Staff in the administrative office sold raffle tickets at a cost of about
$1 per ticket and awarded all six baskets to winning ticket holders. The
raffle ultimately raised $571 from ticket sales, which Corrections
subsequently donated to a local charity. However, the California
Constitution’s limited exception to the ban on raffles only permits
nonprofit, tax‑exempt charities that are preauthorized by Justice to
conduct this type of raffle. Even though Corrections donated the proceeds
of the raffle to a charity, the raffle was still illegal.

According to the employees we interviewed who were responsible for
organizing holiday parties, the office has held raffles each December for
at least the past seven years. Employees from the office volunteer annually
to serve on the holiday party committee, which decides the location of the
holiday party, the food that will be served, and the employee activities
that will be included. According to the former committee chair, the holiday
party committee makes all the decisions related to the party. The employees
we spoke to were not aware of any Corrections policy or guideline
addressing inappropriate holiday party activities.

Recommendation

To prevent these improper governmental activities from recurring,
Corrections should issue a memo to all staff no later than November 2017,
and annually thereafter, regarding the prohibition of raffles and the
unauthorized sale of alcohol and ammunition.

Agency Response

In August 2017, Corrections stated that it agreed with our findings related
to the illegal raffle and that it intended to educate its staff regarding
the problems associated with holding the type of raffle discussed in this
report. It plans to issue guidance to employees by November 2017 about the
appropriate ways to hold workplace events involving prizes, donations, or
fundraising.

However, Corrections did not agree that an illegal sale of alcohol
occurred. Corrections asserted that a true sale, as a matter of law, would
not include an element of chance. We disagree with Corrections’ assertion
and reaffirm that Business and Professions Code section 23025 specifies
that a sale of alcohol occurs every time the ownership of alcohol transfers
from one party to another for any consideration. Since participants
purchased tickets to participate in the raffle, consideration was given
that resulted in the illegal sale of alcohol each time the alcohol
transferred ownership to the respective winner.

Chapter 5

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS:
A SUPERVISOR NEGLECTED HER DUTY WHEN SHE FAILED TO MANAGE AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAD AN INSUFFICIENT WORKLOAD
CASE I2016‑1059

About the Department

Industrial Relations strives to improve working conditions for California’s wage earners and to advance opportunities for profitable employment in California. The division works to ensure a just day’s pay in every workplace in the State.

Relevant Criteria

Government Code section 19572, subdivision (d), specifies that inexcusable neglect of duty constitutes cause for discipline of an employee.

Government Code section 8314 prohibits state employees from using public resources, including state-compensated time, for personal or other purposes not authorized by law, except for incidental and minimal use, such as an occasional telephone call.

Government Code section 19990 prohibits state employees from engaging in activities that are clearly inconsistent or incompatible with their duties, as further defined by each department. One such incompatible activity is failure to devote one’s full time, attention, and efforts to state employment during hours of duty.

Results in Brief

From April 2016 through May 2017, a supervisor within the Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (division) at Industrial Relations failed to keep a
subordinate employee fully occupied during his work hours. Although the
employee was proficient in his work, the supervisor’s neglect of duty
resulted in the employee frequently having hours of downtime, some of which
he used for personal endeavors. We estimate that during the 14‑month
period, the employee had 328 hours of downtime, for which the State paid
him $5,411.

Background

The supervisor has been employed in her current job classification with
Industrial Relations for more than eight years. In this capacity, she is
responsible for directly supervising several office staff members,
participating in the selection and training of staff, assigning caseload to
staff, and evaluating staff performance and taking appropriate action as
necessary.

Since April 2016, the employee has worked in his job classification and has
reported directly to the supervisor. His duties include providing clerical
support to the division, processing mail, photocopying, faxing, stocking
supplies, maintaining files, answering telephone inquiries, and assisting
the public.

In response to an allegation we received that the employee was failing to
devote his full time and attention to the duties required of his position,
we initiated an investigation and requested the assistance of Industrial
Relations to conduct the investigation.

The Supervisor Failed to Ensure the Employee Had Sufficient Work to
Perform, Resulting in an Estimated Cost of $5,411 to the State

Industrial Relations determined that the supervisor had neglected her duty
to ensure that the employee had sufficient work to perform since he began
working at Industrial Relations. In the course of its investigation,
Industrial Relations interviewed numerous employees, and all of the
witnesses reported having seen the employee read, scroll, or text on his
personal cell phone. Witnesses further reported seeing the employee use his
state computer for activities unrelated to his work and hearing the
employee snoring while asleep at his desk. One witness provided the
Industrial Relations investigators nearly 20 photos and a video that showed
the employee wasting time in various ways, including looking at his cell
phone, leaning back in his office chair with his feet up on his desk, and
sleeping at his desk.

Industrial Relations asked the supervisor if she had observed the employee
engaged in any of the activities the witnesses reported. She admitted she
was aware that the employee often ran out of work and acknowledged that she
had seen the employee using his personal cell phone at his desk on a couple
of occasions. However, the supervisor asserted she had never seen the
employee with his feet up on his desk or using his work computer for
personal activity. The supervisor defended her inaction by stating that the
employee works quickly and has exceptional computer skills; thus, she found
it a challenge to keep him busy. Although the supervisor said that she
expected the employee to check with other staff for tasks when he ran out
of work, she admitted she had not provided the employee with specific
instruction in this regard.

When interviewed by Industrial Relations investigators in May 2017, the
employee stated that he had experienced downtime during his workdays since
he started working at Industrial Relations in 2016 and admitted to all of
the allegations. The employee told investigators that his workload depends
on other employees, including his supervisor, giving him work to perform.
Specifically, the employee has four in‑boxes into which other staff drop
off work that he then processes. When the in‑boxes are empty, his work is
complete, and he waits at his desk until more work arrives.

The employee stated that on several occasions, he asked his supervisor for
work but she was unable to provide any to him. He also asked other
employees within the division for work and occasionally received some. When
an opportunity arose for the employee to take on additional duties, he
volunteered to do so; he began those duties in May 2017. The employee
estimated that he did not have any work to perform on 10 percent of his
workdays during most months since his hire, and he experienced up to 60
percent downtime in late March and April 2017. Based on his statements, we
estimate that from April 2016 through May 2017, he was without sufficient
work to perform for 328 hours, for which the State paid him $5,411.

Following its investigation, Industrial Relations issued the supervisor a
memorandum addressing her neglect of duty. The memorandum criticizes her
failure to adhere to core business hours and the subsequent effect on her
ability to supervise her subordinates. The memorandum requires the
supervisor to ensure the employee adheres to his work schedule, takes
scheduled breaks and lunches, remains productive at all times, and refrains
from activities unrelated to work during business hours. It also requires
the supervisor to ensure that all of her other staff are fully productive
during business hours. Additionally, Industrial Relations reported to us
that it will direct the supervisor to provide timely performance feedback
to all of her staff through probationary reports and performance
appraisals.

In June 2017, Industrial Relations also issued the employee a memorandum
concerning his conduct and directed him to cease all activities unrelated
to his work during business hours. The memorandum requires the employee to
adhere to work hours, take his lunch hour and breaks at set times each day,
and restrict the use of his personal cell phone to those times. In
addition, it requires the employee to notify his supervisor immediately if
he is without work.

Recommendation

Industrial Relations has fully addressed the improper governmental
activities identified in this report; thus, we have made no
recommendations.

Agency Response

Because Industrial Relations has taken corrective action, no response is
needed.

Chapter 6

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES:
AN ANALYST MISUSED STATE RESOURCES FOR PERSONAL REASONS
CASE I2016‑0435

About the Department

Social Services employs more than 4,200 employees and is responsible for the oversight and administration of programs serving California’s most vulnerable residents.

Relevant Criteria

Government Code section 8314 prohibits state employees from using state resources, including state computers and state email accounts, for personal purposes, except for incidental and minimal use, such as an occasional telephone call.

Government Code section 19990 prohibits state employees from engaging in activities that are clearly inconsistent or incompatible with their duties as state employees, as further defined by each department. Prohibited activities specifically include using state equipment for private advantage.

Government Code section 19572, subdivision (p), specifies that misuse of state resources constitutes cause for discipline of state employees.

Results in Brief

An analyst at Social Services misused state resources when she used her
state email account to conduct personal business. The analyst sent or
received 398 personal emails from August 2015 through May 2016.

Background

In addition to the state laws that govern the proper use of state
resources, Social Services has its own policies regarding email use that
provide its employees with guidelines for using, accessing, and exchanging
information using any computer system. Social Services’ policies specify
that its employees may use their state email accounts for work‑related
activities only and that “incidental and very minimal” personal use of the
state email is permitted from time to time. Social Services employees with
state email access are further required to complete training on its
policies when they are hired and annually thereafter. Records show that the
analyst participated in this annual training in 2012 and 2013 only.

In response to an allegation we received that the analyst was using her
state email account excessively to send emails to her child’s school and
teachers, we initiated an investigation and requested the assistance of
Social Services to conduct the investigation.

The Analyst Misused Her State Email Account to Send and Receive an
Excessive Number of Personal Emails

As part of this investigation, Social Services performed an evaluation of
the analyst’s state email account from August 2015 through May 2016 and
found it contained many emails with personal content. We reviewed the
emails and determined that the analyst’s use of her state email account for
personal reasons violated state laws and Social Services’ policies
governing the use of state resources. Our review of the emails provided the
following results:

The analyst sent or received 398 personal emails, which far exceeds
incidental or minimal use of state resources.

The personal emails primarily consisted of communication to and from her
child’s school and teachers.

The analyst also sent and received emails regarding her medical
appointments, mortgage finances, and religious affiliation.

During her interview with the Social Services investigator, the analyst
admitted that she used her state email account to communicate with her
child’s school and teachers. Furthermore, the analyst acknowledged that she
used her state email account as a form of contact for receiving personal
communications, and the evidence we reviewed supports that she provided her
state email address to entities and individuals unrelated to her state
employment.

Although many of the emails were lengthy and likely took significant time
to compose and read, the analyst claimed to have exchanged the personal
emails during her work breaks or lunch times. We did not find evidence to
dispute her claim; therefore, we were unable to substantiate that she
misused state‑paid time to send and receive the personal emails.

In January 2017, as a result of its investigation, Social Services provided
the analyst with a formal counseling memorandum that addressed her misuse
of state resources. The analyst left Social Services in February 2017 to
work for another state agency.

Recommendation

Because Social Services already formally counseled the analyst for this
improper governmental activity, we have no additional recommendation.

Agency Response

Because Social Services already counseled the analyst, no response is
necessary.